UltraTrust.com, a website on expert irrevocable trust asset protection and founded by Estate Street Partners, recently reviewed, analyzed, and compared the high profile divorce cases of billionaires, Rupert Murdoch [Murdoch v. Murdoch, NY Supreme Court, No: 307226-2013] and Harold Hamm [Hamm v. Hamm, No. FD-2012-2048 (2012) District Court for Oklahoma County], to see what was being done to protect their assets.
“We looked into the most high profile divorces with the most assets in jeopardy. Harold Hamm and Rupert Murdoch had drastically different asset protection plans during their divorces,” explains Rocco Beatrice, managing director of Estate Street Partners.
These divorces are at the opposite end of the spectrum and show how by just taking the right steps it can save you enormously in a divorce situation.
UltraTrust.com recently dug into the divorce of Rupert Murdoch (11) and reported that his estate planning and asset protection to be far superior to that of Harold Hamm (4), whom UltraTrust.com investigated some time ago.
According to Forbes, Mr. Hamm is in the oil business (2). In fact, his oil empire, according to Forbes’ March 2012 issue, has made him 76th wealthiest person in the world (2).
According to the court documents, he married Sue Ann in April 1998, but she filed for divorce in 2012. A more recent legal filing by Sue Ann Hamm on March 7, 2013, claims she filed for divorce because Harold “was having an affair” which led to her filing for the divorce.
“I suspect that Mr. Hamm didn’t have a prenuptial agreement, but nobody is 100% certain about it. If there was no prenup that means that this will be largest divorce in the history of divorces,” exclaims Mr. Beatrice.
In March 23, 2013 posting of Forbes.com (2), it’s stated Sue Ann could receive somewhere around $5.3 billion. That’s a high price for divorce.
UltraTrust.com then assessed the divorce case of Rupert Murdoch. Mr. Murdoch is the founder, Chairman and CEO of globally media holding company News Corporation states BRW (4). Mr. Murdoch ranks 91st among billionaires according to Forbes (6).
Mr. Murdoch had his future wife, Wendi Deng, sign a prenuptial agreement in 1999 The Independent verified (7).
“A prenuptial agreement affords some protection, but the problem is that the agreement can be challenged,” says Mr. Beatrice. “Even if the challenge doesn’t work, the time, energy, attorney’s fees and court costs can drain a person.”
Mr. Murdoch has been stung before in divorce proceedings where Anna Torv was awarded $200 million and a trust was created for the benefit of the children (8). This time though he drafted a prenuptial document that may save the majority of his assets (9).
There are, however, several ways to defeat a prenuptial agreement by showing that is wasn’t properly executed. For example, if the prenuptial agreement was signed too close to the marriage date or if there are invalid provisions and/or false or incomplete information or even that the entire contract is unconscionable.
UltraTrust.com believes, Mr. Murdoch’s estranged wife, Wendi Deng, still has many options for going after a larger chunk of the marital pie.
On the other hand with respect to Mr. Hamm’s and Sue Ann’s divorce, UltraTrust.com believes, as a result of poor estate planning, Sue Ann, may receive $5.3 billion in assets from the divorce.
“The scary part is that nothing is required of Sue Ann when she receives that money because no irrevocable trust was created. She doesn’t have to pass it on to the children or grandchildren. She could leave it to anyone” explains Mr. Beatrice.
Mr. Hamm had three children from his first marriage as well as two daughters by Sue Ann according to Forbes (2).
“If she marries again and receives half of his assets then this portion could all go to her new husband with none going back to the Hamm family of his three children from his first marriage. Not having any asset protection not only can let assets slip out of a person’s hands, but it might just slip right out of the family altogether!”
In stark contrast, Mr. Murdoch, has an irrevocable trust called the A.E. Harris Trust already in place for his children according to NY Magazine (8).
“Nothing beats a well-written and executed irrevocable trust,” exclaims Mr. Beatrice.
“A well-written trust like the Ultra Trust can weather almost any storm and keep the house intact for one’s family.”
Mr. Murdoch was either very good at predicting the weather, or he was taking no chances, because early on he established an irrevocable trust with Anna Torv, his second wife, for the benefit of their children according to NY Magazine (8). Instead of opting for a lengthy court battle, Anna decided to put a sizable amount, about $1.8 billion in assets into a trust for the children.
Now, those assets are protected and no matter what happens to either party, the Murdoch’s children are still taken care of according to NY Magazine (8).
“The irrevocable trust is excellent in this case. Both parties feel they didn’t lose anything, because the assets are there for the people they love,” extols Mr. Beatrice.
Mr. Murdoch’s current divorce is still being sorted out, but the money in the irrevocable trust is most assuredly safe believes UltraTrust.com. However, according to UltraTrust.com, Ms. Deng, now estranged from Mr. Murdoch, will probably still receive a substantial amount despite the prenuptial agreement.
“When we were reviewing the Hamm case, we determined actually all of Mr. Hamm’s money is fair game. Sue Ann Hamm could receive half of the marital assets valued at $5.3 billion based on Forbes estimates (2). But Mr. Hamm’s children from his first marriage could receive nothing at all.”
“Contrast this with Mr. Murdoch’s case, where he himself could lose everything but, at least, his children could still receive $1.8 billion all because the assets were protected with an irrevocable trust,” claims Mr. Beatrice.
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust® Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872.
Recently, UltraTrust.com, founded by Estate Street Partners as an informational website on expert irrevocable trust and estate planning, reviewed and analyzed the financial consequences of Rupert Murdoch’s divorce filing, according to The Wall Street Journal, in the New York State Supreme Court on June 13, 2013 (Murdoch v. Murdoch, NY Supreme Court, No: 307226-2013), from his third wife, Wendi Deng (7).
According to Forbes and BRW, Rupert Murdoch is an 82-year old media mogul, and chairman and CEO of News Corporation (2). Forbes.com reports his net worth at $11.2 billion dollars as of March 2013; ranking him the 91st wealthiest person in the world (5).
previous ex-wife, Anna Torv, may have inadvertently saved Mr. Murdoch a fortune with this divorce and enabled him to pass on control of his empire to his four children
UltraTrust.com believes his previous ex-wife, Anna Torv, may have inadvertently saved Mr. Murdoch a fortune with this divorce and enabled him to pass on control of his empire to his four children, according to BRW, from his previous two marriages: Prudence, from his first wife, Patricia Booker; Elisabeth Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch, and James Murdoch who were all of Anna’s children with Rupert Murdoch. (2)
According to BRW, Rupert Murdoch was first married to Patricia Booker in 1958 and had one child, Prudence. They were later divorced in 1967. He later married Anna Torv in 1967; divorcing in 1999. (2)
New Roth IRA rules passed by Bush could help reduce Obama’s $12 trillion deficit spending
According to BRW, Mr. Murdoch did not have a prenuptial agreement with Anna Torv, nor did he appear to have taken any steps to protect his assets in the event of a divorce. (2)
UltraTrust.com thinks that rather than suffer through a long, drawn out divorce proceeding with Anna Torv, he decided to take the deal on the table. She only received about $200 million as reported by NY Magazine (3), but the California court system may have given her upwards of $7.8 billion since it is a community property state (3).
UltraTrust.com considers this is where Anna’s shrewdness is demonstrated. According to BRW, instead of going after the rest of the assets, she accepted a deal from Mr. Murdoch, where his company’s assets would go into the A.E. Harris Trust with the beneficiaries being all of his children equally (4).
“I think Anna knew she would have a hard time spending $200 million plus whatever income it produced in her lifetime, so why fight for more? Now the additional assets are in an irrevocable trust for her three children and Mr. Murdoch’s first child by Patricia, Prudence, whom she helped raise (3),” clarifies Mr. Beatrice.
An irrevocable trust agreement is an entity to hold assets under specific instructions for the benefit of others. The assets are owned by the trust so generally no one can touch them until they are distributed to the beneficiaries. A good irrevocable trust, such as the Ultra Trust can keep assets safe from creditors, lawsuits as well as, future ex-spouses.
So, according to UltraTrust.com, both Mr. Murdoch and Anna made out on the deal because the assets were now in a safe place for their children, although UltraTrust.com is not sure if Mr. Murdoch would know how much he would later benefit.
Along with the protection of the irrevocable trust (3) he set up during his marriage with Anna Torv, Mr. Murdoch had Wendi sign a prenuptial agreement in 1999 according to the Independent (4).
“A prenuptial agreement isn’t as good as an irrevocable trust, but Mr. Murdoch probably used it to try to either protect his millions in pocket money or possibly to gain the upper hand should he need to negotiate during a divorce. Either way, it should help him in his newest divorce,” estimates Mr. Beatrice.
In fact, some of the estate is already settled according to USA Today. Mr. Murdoch’s trust allows the trustee to change beneficiaries, but only with the existing beneficiaries’ approval (1).
Wendi Deng has two daughters by Mr. Murdoch, Grace, age 11, and Chloe, age 9 (1). The four older children voted Wendi’s children into the trust with 8.7 million shares. These shares are non-voting unlike the four children who each have equal voting shares. (1)
“The reason that this could be done is that Mr. Murdoch has no control over these assets. The trustee has sole control along with some checks and balances by the beneficiaries. There is nothing Wendi or Wendi’s children can do,” points out Mr. Beatrice.
So, according to UltraTrust.com, Wendi can’t receive the benefits of the trust. USA Today reports that Wendi did receive non-voting shares, but the number of them wasn’t specified (1).
What she is actually awarded may depend on what the prenuptial agreement specifies.
“I would bet that Mr. Murdoch had some pretty good lawyers this time. I wish that Mr. Murdoch would have put the rest of his assets in a trust. There is really no reason to have significant assets out there for the taking. He only risks big lawsuits and big divorces,” exclaims Mr. Beatrice.
“I’m guessing that he will give her more than the prenuptial agreement states and modify it. He doesn’t want a long case. He may have been better off with his assets in another irrevocable trust where he doesn’t have control. That way, there would be no way for Wendi to get any of his assets because he wouldn’t own any,” suggests Mr. Beatrice.
UltraTrust.com will be watching this case closely as the divorce continues and waiting to see what is in that prenuptial agreement and what the outcome will be.
To learn how to protect assets save on estate taxes and probate costs visit UltraTrust.com, the irrevocable trust experts. Visit MyUltraTrust.com to set up a DIY irrevocable trust plan.
###
About Estate Street Partners (UltraTrust.com):
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust® Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872.
Kobe Slamming Mom’s actions over his Sports Memorabilia
UltraTrust.com, founded by Estate Street Partners, a site about irrevocable trust and estate planning, recently examined the case between Kobe Bryant and his mother, Pamela Bryant, regarding the permission by his mother to Goldin Auctions of West Berlin to auction off more than a 100 collectibles of Kobe’s childhood at a New Jersey auction house (2). UltraTrust.com provides further detail to this case and offers its recommendations from an estate planning perspective.
Goldin Auctions was to auction Kobe’s childhood collectibles beginning April 30, 2013 (2) but Kobe issued a cease-and-desist order [Bryant v. Goldin Auctions, LLC, 1:2013cv02816, (2013)] (2). Goldin Auction then responded with its own filing on May 2 in Camden, MA (4). Kobe Bryant shortly thereafter on May 7 filed a block of the sale of the collectibles in California (2).
Nobody wins a family lawsuit. If Kobe wins, his mother most likely loses her dream house. If the auction house wins, Kobe will harbor animosity towards his mother for selling his items. Nobody wins.
The bitter dispute seems to revolve around a he-said she-said.
Kobe Bryant and Vanessa, his wife, both stated under oath and made statements under penalties of perjury that they did not give these collectibles to Pamela Bryant (1). However, both Pamela and Joseph Bryant, Kobe’s father, who played for the NBA team, Philadelphia 76ers, claim that Kobe gave these items to Pamela and that they been in her possession for the last 15 years (2).
Since Pamela Bryant had her son’s childhood clothing, trophies and rings (3) and other items she decided that she would consign them to Goldin Auctions in order that Goldin Auctions would advance her $450,000 so she could purchase a home in Nevada (3).
“Most of us don’t have millions of dollars worth of celebrity paraphernalia lying around our house,” explains Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, “and if someone does have items worth that much usually they are protected.”
According to UltraTrust.com, Kobe Bryant, didn’t properly protect his belongings by ensuring that his mother was simply holding them for him.
Pamela Bryant signed a permission statement to Goldin Auctions that Kobe made it known to her that he didn’t want the items anymore, making them legally hers to sell (1).
Both Kobe and Vanessa, almost divorcing in the last 12 months, have stated that they asked for the items back some years ago to give to their children (1). Though Kobe is not directly suing his mother, he claims two collectibles, a Teen Choice Award surfboard and a trophy, were taken from his home in California (2).
“When things are not written down, problems can crop up in the best of families,” states Mr. Beatrice.
“It is always best, especially with items worth millions of dollars, to have the ownership of the items clearly stated and documented.”
Kobe has seemingly attempted to keep his mother out of this by only naming the auction house in the New Jersey District Court lawsuit [Bryant v. Goldin Auctions, LLC, 1:2013cv02816, (2013)], but inevitably, his mother will be drawn into the case by the auction house.
“A simple way to have avoided this whole problem is with an irrevocable trust,” suggests Mr. Beatrice.
“Although I wouldn’t recommend it for asset protection reasons, he could have even named his mother as the trustee to manage the items.”
Certain types of trusts allow assets to be protected and are held within it, managed by a trustee. Most trusts list assets and have instructions for distributing those assets and when, how and to whom they should be distributed.
They are a legal ways for assets to be held for the benefit of someone else.
Because Kobe did not have these items in a trust or identified as his in any other way, he may be fighting a losing battle. In addition, if Kobe did ask for the items back and the statute of limitations has run out on the filing of a lawsuit, the auction house could win on a technicality.
“Winning these kinds of disputes is a misnomer. Nobody wins a family lawsuit. If Kobe wins, his mother most likely loses her dream house. If the auction house wins, Kobe will harbor animosity towards his mother for selling his items. Nobody wins,” explains Mr. Beatrice.
“One of the first questions an estate or wealth planner asks is for a list of all valuable assets. If Kobe would have done some essential estate planning, and the planner was alert, he could have placed all of these items in a trust for safe keeping,” advises Mr. Beatrice.
“If he was interested in donating these items, he could have set up a charitable remainder trust that could have used the items to perpetuate an unlimited number of years of giving.”
“Instead of helping children or his mother, a significant amount of wealth is going to go to the attorneys trying this case. I pray to God that the family is not affected by these legal issues.”
To learn how to protect assets save on estate taxes and probate costs visit UltraTrust.com, the irrevocable trust experts. Visit MyUltraTrust.com to set up a [DIY irrevocable trust plan.
###
About Estate Street Partners (UltraTrust.com):
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust® Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872.
IRS is Aggressively Coming after those
that did not File their Gift tax form
UltraTrust.com, founded by Estate Street Partners, a website for those seeking expert irrevocable trust planning, recently analyzed the IRS’s Tax Court case against billionaire Sumner Redstone, chairman of CBS Corporation and Viacom for allegedly not filing a gift tax return 41 years ago and the IRS now claim he owes $1.1 million in taxes and penalties (1). UltraTrust.com comments on what this may mean for millions of Americans.
Mr. Redstone, according to court documents, filed a petition on April 10 in the U.S. Tax Court responding that the transaction the IRS alludes to was not a gift, but rather an intra-family dispute and “ordinary business transaction.” (1)
The federal government is stepping up its collection efforts by going after anyone they can, including a 41 year old transfer of assets
The transaction claimed as a gift by the IRS was made in 1972. Mr. Redstone’s case is being appealed [Redstone v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 008097-13, (2013)].
Though this transaction was made 41 years ago, the statute of limitations is unlimited when no tax is filed for any transaction.
“This is really troubling as it can set a major precedent. I believe many Americans who have made a gift contribution to their irrevocable trust or family members, but have not filed or improperly filed their gift to the IRS may have them come knocking on their door,” claims Rocco Beatrice, an estate planner and irrevocable trust expert and Managing Director of Estate Street Partners.
“Every large gift (currently ones over $14,000) to either another person or an irrevocable trust needs to be reported to the IRS by way of gift tax filing form 709,” continues Mr. Beatrice.
“I imagine every estate planning lawyer in the country had record years due to the federal government’s last minute estate and gift tax decision. That means possibly thousands of irrevocable trusts were created and funded with gifts.”
Last year, with the federal government’s uncertainty around the gift and estate tax rate due to unknown election results, UltraTrust.com asserts many ran to their local lawyer and set up irrevocable trusts to take advantage of the, then, favorable tax exemptions.
“In an informal poll taken of my prospective clients who called asking questions about their irrevocable trusts, 6 out of 10 didn’t know about the gift tax return filing, because their estate planner or lawyer didn’t tell them,” explains Mr. Beatrice of UltraTrust.com.
UltraTrust.com suggests this could mean millions have not filed a gift tax return and thus, the IRS could impose the back tax, interest, and penalties even decades later if this is the case.
According to court documents, the petition filed by Sumner Redstone states that the IRS’s alleged gift in question are some shares in National Amusements, Inc. that was transferred to Edward’s and Sumner’s children. Edward is Sumner’s late brother.
According to UltraTrust.com, Mr. Redstone may have to spend a significant amount of time and resources fighting this tax case in court. However, most people may not have Mr. Redstone’s resources to contest the IRS’s claims.
UltraTrust.com expects that a lot of those who may struggle to pay are those who put all of their assets into irrevocable trusts in anticipation of qualifying for Medicaid, a popular way to protect assets for children.
A gift to an irrevocable trust is considered a completed gift because the person putting the assets into the trust no longer has ownership over anything in the trust. If the person funding the trust can’t get at the assets, neither can the nursing home thereby qualifying the person for Medicaid and keeping the assets safe for beneficiaries.
“By not filing a gift tax return, it’s a catch-22. If the person manages to get the irrevocable trust to pay the taxes and penalties, then the government can make a case that the grantor has too much control and thus trust assets are not separate. Therefore it isn’t truly irrevocable and the person doesn’t qualify for Medicaid thus the assets should be used to pay nursing home bills,” explains Mr. Beatrice.
“If the trust doesn’t pay, then the person may not be able to get the IRS off their back spending potentially tens of thousands to defend themselves and may be subject to fines or jail.”
“If you don’t want to be in Mr. Redstone’s shoes and you have an existing irrevocable trust, I suggest you call an estate planning tax expert,” urges Mr. Beatrice.
“Even if the IRS hasn’t contacted you, please remember that there is no statute of limitations on a failure to file your taxes.”
As a matter of fact, according to The Kiplinger Tax Letter Volume 87, No. 26, the IRS has been actively trying to identify those who did not file their gift tax returns by collecting data from state property records.
“In this economy, even the federal government is stepping up its collection efforts by going after anyone they can, including a 41 year old transfer of assets,” explains Mr. Beatrice, “It’s time to cross your T’s and dot on all of your I’s.”
To learn how to protect assets, save on estate taxes and probate costs visit UltraTrust.com, the irrevocable trust experts. Visit MyUltraTrust.com to set up a DIY irrevocable trust plan.
Protect your assets for yourself and your children and beneficiaries and avoid tax dollars. Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with our Premium UltraTrust Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872 for a no-cost, no obligation consultation and to learn more.
Rocco Beatrice, CPA, MST, MBA, CWPP, CAPP, MMB – Managing Director, Estate Street Partners, LLC. Mr. Beatrice is an “AA” asset protection, Trust, and estate planning expert.
###
About Estate Street Partners (UltraTrust.com):
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust® Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872.
Estate Street Partners, creators of the UltraTrust irrevocable trust, enlightens their outlook after recently reviewing Ashton Kutcher’s divorce filing in December 2012 [Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BD535718] (6) and Demi Moore’s response filing on March 7, 2013 asking for spousal support, legal fee compensation, (7) and half of Kutcher’s $20 million worth of equity in A-Grade Investments, a venture-capital funding firm that he co-founded with Madonna’s manager, Guy Oseary, and billionaire Ron Burkle. (8)
In the legal documents she filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Demi cites irreconcilable differences as the reason for the divorce. (7) Entertainment-journal.net reports that Ashton “hooked up” with Sara Leal in San Diego on September 24, 2011 but Demi, in her recent filing, claims the date of separation on November 17, 2011. (1)
People don’t ever think divorce is going to happen, despite the statistics. They also can’t imagine that the beautiful man/woman at the altar will ever turn on them, but it happens.
Whether or not this is completely true, Estate Street Partners reports that Demi is asking for more than $10M. A-Grade Investments is valued at $100M (8) and, in California, Moore will be entitled to half of this.
Estate Street Partners claims most assets brought into a marriage by a partner will stay with that partner. They claim assets earned or made during the marriage are considered marital assets (9).
“This is why Demi may have a shot at this money — it was made, with her help during the course of the marriage. A pre-nup probably would not have helped in this case. It is really hard to claim assets that haven’t been earned or made yet, ” explains Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners and founder of UltraTrust.com.
“People don’t ever think divorce is going to happen, despite the statistics. They also can’t imagine that the beautiful man/woman at the altar will ever turn on them, but it happens,” points out Mr. Beatrice. “Whether you enter a relationship with less than your partner or more, being prepared is important.”
Estate Street Partners believes much of the financial battle that may ensue between Kutcher and Moore could have been avoided.
“We wouldn’t have recommended a prenuptial agreement for them. Instead, Mr. Kutcher and Ms. Moore should have set up irrevocable trusts like the UltraTrust if they haven’t done so already.”
“This would protect their assets from divorce and the premarital assets will always stay separate and the divorce court could not take assets from the trusts because the couple doesn’t own them,” states Mr. Beatrice.
The trusts can then continue to grow the funds and all investments and assets would be free from gift and estate tax.
“A lot of wealthy people use irrevocable trusts to grow assets that are worth little into huge profits. The reason they do this is to avoid the gift and estate taxes down the road. The amount originally placed into the trust is the only amount that counts toward the gift tax, no matter how large the assets grow,” explains Mr. Beatrice.
According to Estate Street Partners, it would have been ideal if Ashton had placed his $10 million investment in A-Grade Investments within an irrevocable trust and before his marriage. These investments would then be allowed to grow and it could be passed on to his beneficiaries estate and gift-tax free.
However, NYPost.com reports, this was not the case and Ashton made this investment while he was with Demi.(8)
“Even though Ashton may potentially lose half of his investments in A-Grade Investments because of this fact, he and Demi would still have benefited from irrevocable trusts before their marriage,” advises Mr. Beatrice.
“This divorce is certainly a lesson for those who think, ‘My fiancee is significantly more wealthy than I am, so if there is no prenuptial agreement, I don’t care'” warns Mr. Beatrice.
“No forward estate planning at the beginning of marriage and during marriage always leaves someone, if not both parties, at a loss. Divorce is never pretty, but a well written and timely executed irrevocable trust such as the UltraTrust can prevent a lot of haggling and headaches and valuable court time could be saved.”
To learn how to protect assets save on estate taxes and probate costs visit UltraTrust.com, the irrevocable trust experts. Visit MyUltraTrust.com to set up a DIY irrevocable trust plan.
###
About Estate Street Partners (UltraTrust.com):
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust® Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872 to learn more.
Estate Street Partners, creators of the Ultra Trust irrevocable trust and experts at helping doctors protect their assets from legal judgment’s, investigates the recent lawsuit filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court on May 15, 2013 by Frank Dietl, a New Jersey man, against Dr. Mehmet Oz because of advice Dr. Oz gave on his show [Dietl, Frank vs. Oz, Dr. Mehmet, 152423 NY, (2013)] (1). Mr. Dietl claims to have received third degree burns on his feet due to his advice (2).
Estate Street Partners wonders if the lawsuit is frivolous or just unusual. “Seemingly frivolous lawsuits can be grounded in law while lawsuits considered a slam-dunk by some may be frivolous. Until one peels back the skin of the onion, you just can’t tell,” says Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC.
…The Doctors and small business-persons that really want protection from lawsuits separate their work lives from their private assets by using an irrevocable trust…
The most famous seemingly frivolous lawsuit concerning a woman who was badly burned by coffee, turned out to be a winner [Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s , Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. (1994)] (3).
Rocco Beatrice clarifies and sheds some light on Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s case to illustrate some important points that offers insight to the Frank Dietl v. Oz case.
“To succeed in court with a negligence lawsuit, a plaintiff has to prove a few things. First, they have to prove that the defendant has a duty to the plaintiff. In the case of the coffee, the court found that McDonald’s did have a duty to provide a safe product to the plaintiff,” explains Mr. Beatrice.
“Second, a plaintiff must prove that the duty was somehow breached. Again, in the case of the coffee, the court found that the coffee was not safe because it was extremely hot compared to industry standards, and it was foreseeable that a person may spill it on themselves and therefore the product (coffee) should be safe to spill.”
“Lastly there must be an injury or damage of some kind.” The coffee when spilled caused third degree burns to the plaintiffs legs (3).
“When you break a case down into sections, you can see why the court came to the conclusion it did. It doesn’t seem as frivolous,” points out Rocco Beatrice, “although the damages originally levied against McDonald’s may have been quite over the top at $600,000 (3).”
In regards to the Dr. Oz pending lawsuit, Mr. Dietl, who is the brother of Richard “Bo” Dietl, a former NYPD detective and a media personality (6), took advice from Dr. Oz to put rice in socks, place them in the microwave and then wear them to bed to aid in sleep, according to court documents.
The man, according to court documents, had neuropathy which diminished his sensitivity to heat in his feet and he applied the socks that were too hot, causing third degree burns.
“Applying the same procedure, the plaintiff could make the argument that Dr. Oz has a duty to the plaintiff because he holds himself out as a physician who gives advice on healthy living. The plaintiff must prove that this advice was somehow not safe.”
According to Mr. Beatrice, the plaintiff could argue that it was foreseeable that persons with decreased sensitivity would be watching the show, so there should have been a warning or heating instructions.
Mr. Beatrice points out that Dr. Oz may prevail arguing that it is not foreseeable that a person with neuropathy would put microwaved socks on non-sensitive feet without testing for excessive heat on another part of their body.
Although Dr. Oz may have a slight edge, it appears that this case may be a toss-up, which means that Dr. Oz and ABC could be in for a long expensive battle, rationalizes Rocco Beatrice.
“The only thing for sure in this case is that the lawyers will make money,” remarks Mr. Beatrice.
Regardless of how it turns out, Dr. Oz is not the first or the last Doctor to get sued, frivolously or non-frivolously.
In a study that came out in 2010 (Medical Liability Claim Frequency: A 2007-2008 Snapshot of Physicians, Kane, 2010) almost 50% of all physicians are sued during their careers and almost 25% are sued more than once (4).
“Just because Dr. Oz is on TV doesn’t mean that he is more or less apt to have a lawsuit against him. These lawsuits are not even always related to their practice. The perception is that doctors have deep pockets, so any chance to sue, people do,” explains Rocco Beatrice.
Estate Street Partners claims most physicians, like Dr. Oz, carry plenty of medical insurance and less carry umbrella insurance.
“The ones that really want protection from lawsuits separate their work lives from their private assets by using an irrevocable trust such as the Ultra Trust,” comments Mr. Beatrice.
“If a physician makes a mistake, a plaintiff can sue the physician and the physician’s business. That means the lawsuit could eat into family and personal assets. To prevent a plaintiff from taking funds, don’t give them any funds to take. Keep assets out of the physician’s name and in the safety of an UltraTrust irrevocable trust,” suggests Rocco Beatrice.
Mr. Beatrice further advises, “If a physician, business owner, or anyone for that matter, were to put their real property, holdings, investments, savings and assets into an irrevocable trust, then they legally would not own the items anymore. If they don’t own it, nobody can take it in a lawsuit.”
“I enjoy Dr. Oz’s show and I hope that he has taken the right steps to insulate himself from lawsuits. I would like to see him continue to offer advice without having to look over his shoulder all the time,” bemoans Rocco Beatrice.
“I would advise all my clients to seriously look into an well-written irrevocable trust like the UltraTrust that we’ve constructed to avoid the loss of personal assets.”
To learn how to protect assets save on estate taxes and probate costs visit UltraTrust.com, the irrevocable trust experts. Learn what is the difference between a Revocable Trust vs Irrevocable Trust. Visit MyUltraTrust.com to set up a DIY irrevocable trust services.
###
About Estate Street Partners (UltraTrust.com):
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust® Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872.
A motion filed (1) in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Docket Number: BD514309) on April 22, 2013 by Jamie McCourt, ex-wife of Frank McCourt, the former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers claims Mr. McCourt undervalued the estimate of his assets by $1.7 billion, creating what would be the largest divorce by any professional team-owner in the United States (2); however, Estate Street Partners, creators of the UltraTrust irrevocable trust, recently reviewed their miry situation and released their assessment and advice.
Estate Street Partners believes that had the McCourts thought ahead and implemented a well-drafted irrevocable trust, then the assets would be placed out of their hands for the benefit of their four children.
…Assets within a properly drafted, executed, and funded irrevocable trust are not marital assets and won’t be subject to an equitable distribution in the event of a divorce…
Frank McCourt and Jamie McCourt were divorced in October of 2010. The McCourts were married for over 25 years and have four children together: Drew, Travis, Casey, and Gavin (5).
During the divorce negotiations they agreed to split the marital assets down the middle (3). Mr. McCourt valued his assets at $300 million and Jamie kept $131 million (2). Two months after the divorce was completed the Dodgers franchise was sold for an astonishing $2.1 billion.
A motions hearing was scheduled for April 15th, 2013, which was initiated by Jamie because she believes her husband intentionally misrepresented the value of the L.A. Dodgers during the divorce negotiations (2).
“There are better ways to protect assets in a divorce than misrepresenting assets though. Nobody wants to be drawn back into court,” states Mr. Beatrice.
Assets within a properly drafted, executed, and funded irrevocable trust are not marital assets and won’t be subject to an equitable distribution in the event of a divorce.” There are decades of cases to support this including: [Cooley v. Cooley, 32 Conn.App. 152, (1993).], [Moore v. Moore, 111 S.W.3d 530 (2003).], [McGinn v. McGinn, 273 Ga. 292, 540 S.E.2d 604 (2001)], [Findlen v. Findlen, 695 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1997)], [Mikhail v. Mikhail, 124 Ohio Misc. 2d 5, 791 N.E.2d 468 (C.P. 2003)], and [In re Marriage of Jones, 159 Or. App. 377, 981 P.2d 338 (1999)] are a few examples of case law supporting this fact.
“A person prior to marriage, or even in some cases, during a marriage, can take personal assets out of their name and place them into an irrevocable trust. There, they are safe and can grow estate tax and probate free,” explains Mr. Beatrice.
If one of the McCourts would have put the baseball team in an irrevocable trust, it would not have been a marital asset. Furthermore, any increase in value would not have triggered additional gift or estate tax.
The McCourts would have been gift taxed once and even if the value grew, say to $2.1 billion, the team could be passed to the children estate tax and probate free.
“In a case where an asset is owned by both parties, it can still be put in a trust. Most married couples don’t foresee divorce, but they certainly don’t want to get into a long divorce where the only winners are the lawyers,” opines Mr. Beatrice.
“Usually both parties want to support their children, so getting significant assets out of the marriage into a safe trust for the benefit of those children is widely accepted. Its basic estate planning.”
As it stands, however, Mr. Beatrice believes that both Frank and Jamie are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers, fighting a battle that they didn’t have to.
“It would be hard to spend all of that money in a lifetime, but with this battle, they are only taking away from their children and grandchildren,” figures Mr. Beatrice. “Both parties should have done it differently from the beginning.”
Estate Street Partners believes, neither Frank nor Jamie will probably ever spend all the money they have, and presumes, both parties will be leaving their assets to their mutual children.
According to Estate Street Partners, all of this money they are fighting about will probably be joined back together in the estates of the children (minus the estate taxes if they don’t do some estate planning), which follows that this litigation, seemingly about billions of dollars, may not matter much in the long run.
Estate Street Partners further investigated the possibility of a prenuptial agreement between Frank and Jamie and the consequences thereof and sheds this light on the matter.
Frank and Jamie did not have a prenuptial agreement, although they did separate their assets for asset protection purposes when they moved to California from Boston according to Bloomberg (4).
“You would think that people with these kinds of assets would have done something, but everyone thinks that marriage is forever. I wish it was, but at least half of the time it isn’t,” explains Rocco Beatrice Managing Director of Estate Street Partners.
Prenuptial agreements are subject to attack in the court system. In this case, if Jamie was to get a percentage of marital assets, the prenuptial wouldn’t have helped, Frank still could have devalued his baseball team.
Even if the prenup specified an amount, courts have been known to throw out prenuptial agreements on a variety of reasons [see: In re Marriage of Little, F050969, (2008)] including a substantial change in circumstances [see: McHugh v. McHugh, 181 Conn. 482, 436 A.2d 8 (1980)].
“Over 25 years of marriage and the acquisition of a $2.1 billion baseball team would probably count as a change in circumstances in the courts,” states Mr. Beatrice.
“There is another option, though, that is better than a prenuptial agreement and certainly better than nothing,” elucidates Mr. Beatrice. “It can save families estate and gift taxes as well as probate costs too.”
“I would advise all my clients to seriously look into an well-written irrevocable trust like the UltraTrust that we’ve constructed to avoid these lengthy court battles.”
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust® Irrevocable Trust. Call today at (888) 938-5872.
These divorces are at the opposite end of the spectrum and show how by just taking the right steps it can save you enormously in a divorce situation. 
